Max's clarification on Public Choice theory calls my attention to a remark I made that may have triggered Nathan's question about whether Public Choice theorist use Ellsberg. I referred to the paradox as demonstrating "the bureaucrat's creed that it is always better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." I realize that this is usually taken to mean that the bureaucrats are seeking to maximize their private utility by failing conventionally instead maximizing public utility by succeeding unconventionally. I would put a slightly different (and fuzzier) spin on it. Ellsberg's Paradox can explain the gap between actual policy and "optimal" policy without resorting to the ulterior motivation of bureaucrats, politicians or voters. In other words, bureaucrats may sincerely believe it is better *public policy* to fail conventionally, not merely a career expedient. ;-) Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/
